Racist, Unethical, and Wasteful Hiring Practices

Finding employment is difficult. Even if you haven't had to worry about employment for many years, consider those who do and also yourself in the possible/unforeseen future. I especially hate facing the dreaded racial and gender questions. (Ironically, these days, I answer them just to fuel their racist/sexist agendas.) Since when should race or sex matter in the hiring decision? For even in the effort to police employers (in futility), racist/sexist questions themselves advance both racism and sexism. Furthermore, I ask you, How many times do you have to go to a store or website and fill out the same information over and over and over again with slight deviations? How many times are you asked if you are white or male, or whatever? How many times are you grilled about your previous salary, your previous employment applications, your previous high school attendance, and many other personal questions? And where is your government to protect your privacy, your rights, and your time?

It is the responsibility of your government to set-up and maintain the infrastructure for quick and easy job matching across the country, while protecting your rights at the same time. This responsibility falls under its responsibilities to protect our liberties, our pursuit of happiness, our general welfare, and finally just to protect our economy and our way of life.

In the first place, government must outline the information which is legal for a corporation to solicit during the job application process, including any process which results in the payment of goods, services, or money to an individual as a contractor or employee. The solicitation or collection of information about race or gender should not be allowed by the corporation, but may be collected and tracked only by the government anonymously. Other personal information protected by the government should also include previous salary, salary requirements, credit reports, job search details, personal relationships, personal views and philosophies, to name a few. Drastically shortening the list and more completely protecting the privacy of the people, employers should be limited to acquiring or maintaining only the following kinds of information: 1) Name, Phone numbers, Email, Website, 2) Skills/Experience and strengths, Certifications and degrees, 3) Dates and evidences of skills, experiences, certifications, and degrees, and 4) Limitations of physical work and conditions. No person may be forced to provide or maintain any of this information on themselves or others, but the information provided must be affirmed by oath for its truth.

Secondly, government must enable the efficient collection, maintenance, and distribution of employment information while prosecuting the collection, maintenance, or distribution of other information through any channels. The people must be able to enter their information and update it 24/7 by website, email, or mail submission with reasonably short update times. All information submitted must be protected against theft or destruction. Information must be captured frequently to avoid data loss. All hiring or contracting must be documented at this site for the public to see. All jobs from registered businesses must be posted there at least 1 hour before any hiring or contracting decision is made. This ensures that everyone is aware of job opportunities available and can watch hiring practices. All individuals must report directly to the government all jobs or contracts accepted. All individuals must authorize the collection of race and gender for government reporting to the public. Companies with highly discriminatory hiring stats would be publicly investigated. For the sake of image alone, companies would have an incredibly strong motivation not to look bad through unethical practices.

The State of the nation and her constitution

Guys, no one is ignoring the constitution or ignorant of it. People are simply finding the loopholes around it so that they can do what they want. A poorly written document has many loopholes, and the constitution is no exception. And no, loopholes are not a sign of wickedness in people set to undermine the constitution, but instead are a sign of a constitution unprepared to meet the needs of a very modern nation or the level of morality required to maintain the fine balance in: the market, freedom/security, and diplomacy. But government is more balanced than in earlier times, as great issues are worked out through bloody conflicts like the Civil War, Kent State, and 9/11.

Yes, it is possible to design a constitution to perfection, immune from loopholes and in tune with the needs and morality of all future generations. In all humility :), I am probably the only one who can do it. I see the problems in the system and I know how to politically catalyze the good of the people as the free market mechanisms do economically to produce the mighty American economy; which even in the height of our current depression holds tremendous influence in the world economy. My constitution re-engineering project has already begun, but it is far from complete, though the foundation and framework are in place already. Interestingly, many of my initiatives can be enacted to some degree through creating Presidential departments.

Did God create a document which brought upon us the Civil War by proving unable to resolve the state-slavery issue or to establish the proper conditions and procedures for states to adapt government to meet their needs without a civil war? Original intent assumes the old document is better than the new, which is simply not true. The constitution is constantly adapting to our needs and accumulated wisdom.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.6

Right of Separation and Constitutional Relevance

The right to leave the union assumes that the union allows this peacefully. Force gives no moral rights, thus by force anyone may dissolve any political bands whether or not they have this right. To secure the moral right, the union must violate some inalienable right or the constitution which binds the union. The right of individual agency to act and judge with sovereignty is an inalienable right, not a political right. If political powers attempt to remove this inalienable individual right, then the individual and his state retain thu right to forcefully oppose this defiance of nature. To secure any right (moral or not) as a political right, all political powers must surrender their commitment to forceful opposition. Colonies earned their political right to separation by convincing (usually only possible by force) Britain to release her claim upon their governance. States are justified in rebellion and separation from the union when defending their citizen's rights of representation and suffrage, or other issues of justice which which the union forcefully opposes. On that note, if the union forcefully enforces submission to a just constitution or to just laws, such as the protection of her citizens from slavery, the states who oppose this use of force are not justified in holding grievances against her. By this argument, the Southern States of America stand corrected. There was never any violation of the constitution, and their cause of perpetuating slavery was unjust, therefore they had no moral right to separation.

If the constitution were ignored (as my father also believes), then all laws supported by it would crumble; without the constitutional foundation, the entire government must immediately collapse. Even if the "ignoring" is not misinterpreting, then the parts being ignored are isolated and not likely to be important "cornerstones." Either way, this perception provides clear evidence of the need for re-engineering because it reveals that the judicial branch lacks the power to defend and uphold the constitution. We need you to help re-engineer the constitution to give the courts sufficient power to uphold the constitution as we intend it to be interpreted and in no other way. The constitution works, not because the citizenry police their government, but because of checks and balances, she (government) polices herself. Failures in checking government is not our fault, but the fault of a constitution which needs re-balancing of powers (like a regular car tune-up). That "paper" has real power whether Bush or anyone else chooses to believe it or not. For one thing, it gave him the power to do what he did, otherwise no one would call him President or obey his orders.

The reason that a larger body has become so corrupt by mob rule is because representatives do not derive their power from the people and are so free to be sold out to the highest contributing special interest groups. I have an effective amendment correcting that problem. PS: The Californians who are "people migrating from places of tyranny to places of freedom" are by definition political refugees, though not in the sense of exiles or fugitives.

While uniform, universal law has been abused (see Hitler, WW2) and is no argument by itself, the promises of a well-written constitution are great if government can be held to check all those who would corrupt or ignore the re-engineered constitution. The alternative is to do nothing or constantly run (voting with our feet) from local mobs, cartels, and tyrants, wherever we go. Isolation is not acceptable, so why not continually make a stand here and now (instead of feet voting) and improve the current political system so that tyrants less easily thrive and justice reigns with greater power?

I think that a strong central state preserves a stronger union and the re-engineered justices at all levels of justices. Rest assured that I hold zero tolerance for wealth distribution, yet it is clear that resources must be pooled for the benefit of the society as a whole, and not of small factions who would have us believe that their benefit is our benefit, too. Rest assured that we can engineer a constitution which cannot be interpreted except to advance good and harm evil.

Medical care amendment

The people declare the importance of medical care in establishing the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility. We declare it unlawful for any company to collect information regarding their own employees' medical insurance. Each company must pay their medical benefits directly to their employees in the form of medical benefits vouchers payable to the employee's choice of eligible medical insurance company located anywhere in the country. The insurance company may not record or collect employment related information in any way or for any purpose, including the name of the employer.

The federation and the tyrant

My primary purpose in examining the constitution uf the USA is to look at the current operational shortcomings to determine systematic failures and their root causes. Once these have been identified, it is then quite natural to create amendments which remove the systematic problems and therefore perfect the constitution. When there are no more issues with the government, then the system is perfected, and the officers of government will be acting in harmony with the laws of nature and the will of the people in equality.

The more perfect union is a federal system with the states subject to the will of the union (the current USA), though the states do influence the union in the senate. While the union brings synergy and stability, the civil war well-established that states were not free to leave, and that the union does not derive its powers (i.e. answer to) the states. If "the United States is a voluntary union among several free and independent states," then she would have dissolved long ago. Clearly a confederate USA would be quite similar to the EU, which has not existed for very long. While the federation was not set-up as "the product of conquest or coercion," the North has clearly changed all that with her Civil War.

In a confederation, Aristotle warns of the dangers of mob rule in the smaller, regional political bodies of the states. It was quite common for states to go to great excesses in land re-possession of the American Indians, racial slavery, segregation. and denial of suffrage, and even exterminate people for their beliefs. The federation is the more stable system, and it brings domestic tranquility by diffusing the power of local mobs (political factions) across a larger body politic. The founders behind the confederation were as wrong as the ones who delayed the Bill of Rights. However smart they were, they lacked the experience of several hundred years of seeing how things worked with their new system while moving into a modern, electronic era.

Removing power from the federal government merely creates a power vacuum to be filled by the state (or local governments) and we know well that each are just as ready to abuse that power. At least on the federal level, we may achieve uniformity, predictability, equality among states, and universal fairness with just standards immune to local "politics."

It would be good to set the same standards fairness on all levels of government: for instance, wealth does not influence government to greater privilege (notice lobbying or "vote" buying) or to greater (or less .. see loopholes) taxation.

The states do not enjoy the right of separation now, whether or not they had the right before. The Civil War essentially changed the constitution, not altered in what it said, but in how it is interpreted. The current interpretation is what matters most because we are reforming the current system ... it is the only system that we understand by our own experience and thus it is our only true basis from which to work, besides the less intimate lessons of history. Should we assume that the earlier interpretation (lacking the experience which brought us to Civil War) was better? No. In fact, I think it was far worse. A less perfect union of fragile alliances.

Mob rule is more dangerous in smaller groups because the zealous extremist factions hold a much larger percentage of the vote and of influence. In larger groups, the various local factions hold different interests, and thus loose power through the diversity of interests throughout the various regions. Voting with the feet (political refugees) worked in old times, but the purpose of this document is to create no safe haven for political injustice. The problem is not the amount of power but the laws governing its use.

When tyrants cannot pull the trigger without being sure that the gun was NOT aimed at his own head, then he will not pull it and he CEASES to be a tyrant (no opportunity); this is the purpose of making government blind .. it can't target anyone without targeting everyone, including the tyrant himself. Read my amendments closely and I think you will see that it is possible to disable the tyrant and mob rule while protecting and advancing both freedom and justice in a democracy.

Noncompulsory government health care

Government insurance of medical care promotes the general welfare and to establish domestic tranquility. Nothing like the fear of sickness and death to bring people to the streets in violence. No one says that the government has to administer it or give away freebies, but loosing or switching health care from sudden, massive unemployment is quite nerve-rackingly untranquil (if that is a word). Imagine a world where company benefits are paid in salary and medical care is administered directly by third-party health care companies who are barred by law against obtaining employment information. Imagine companies who are barred by law from learning about your health care plan, administrator, etc.

Obviously government sponsored/subsidized health care promotes the welfare of the wolves who find their lunches in the hands of the others (non-wolves or sheep, if you will). I strongly echo your argument. Government can promote the general welfare without the entitlements by increasing free market competition, benefit transparency and carry-over between jobs, and medical benefit privacy. Government must by the preamble promote the general welfare (i.e. of medical care and education) without slaves or inequality through forced labor or wealth distribution. I believe that Ricco intended as much, or else hopefully by our arguments now intends it. Such is my mission, anyhow, and it appears quite doable to me.

Defense of proposed amendments

The first proposed amendment relieves the pressure on the voter to oppose issues about which their exists neither interest nor opinion. This places the burden of informing and rallying the people (all of them) on the advocates of each bill. Bills pass when the nation is brought together behind them for a more perfect union (#1) and thus we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (#6).

The second proposed amendment binds representatives to represent the people (and not Senators) and not rich special interest, big business, etc. This establishes justice (#2) by returning the power of the people to the people so that the powerful cannot harness the people's power for their own good as they have done with the recent "bailouts" to disastrous proportions. Representatives must bring the people into politics and unify them to exercise their powers, and thus this amendment acts in order to form a more perfect union (#1).

The third proposed amendment moderates filibusters and legislative ramming with healthy debate that insures domestic tranquility (#3).

The fourth proposed amendment a flat tax establishes justice (#2) by leveling the playing field and removing discrimination. It takes the accountability off the people in order to insure domestic tranquility (#3).

The fifth proposed amendment brings fiscal responsibility to establish domestic security (#3) from alarming levels of debt while enabling debt in times of emergency in order to provide for the common defense (#4). The younger are protected from bearing heavy debt brought on by the immediate-gratification and foolish greed of the older (#6), thus establishing some fairness and justice (#2).

The sixth proposed amendment establishes justice (#2) by blind legislation through privacy protection.

Latter amendments to follow are defense of competition (#3 & #5 below) on infrastructure, property, and services, and defense of freedom in education (#2 & #5 below) for teacher, student, and parent alike.

For reference:
1) in order to form a more perfect union
2) establish justice
3) insure domestic tranquility
4) provide for the common defense
5) promote the general welfare
6) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

The constitution of the USA fails the People

The representatives care little about the will of the people and civil liberties appear to be slipping away with each advance of government power.  Elections are rigged and the constitution is failing to protect the People from corruption of government.

The most effective method of improving the constitution is likely the addition of a few amendments to perfect the document, lest the nation slip into anarchy and chaos as her constitution is dissolved or replaced. Below are my proposals for amendments which remove the injustice and strengthen freedom in democracy:

1) The people recognize that failure to participate in an election constitutes a lack of support for the items and candidates to public office in question. Those who fail to participate must have default negative votes recorded as being in opposition to each respective issue and person. Votes in favor must exceed 50% of the registered voters to be accepted by government as a majority support of the item or candidate. No longer shall any person feel compelled to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in order to stop a small faction from advancing a great evil. On the other hand, the people must be allowed to register and change their votes with a national, bio-metric voter ID at any time before the election.

2) The people require their representatives to represent the majority of their constituents. Representatives may not vote in favor of any bill without the majority support of their constituents. Neither may they contradict the established will of the majority. If the majority have established opposition to a bill, the representatives must obtain majority support for any revision of it. If the majority favors a bill, the representative must oppose revisions which lack majority support from their constituents.

3) The people require sufficient quality deliberation of each bill. Both the house and the senate must each deliberate on each bill for no longer than two hours per 24 hours and no less than six hours before final vote with all members present; with no less than three hours dedicated to members in opposition.

4) The people establish freedom from individual accountability for taxation, and pass this accountability at a flat rate to businesses. Taxation must be imposed only by one single flat rate and only on businesses, once for every financial transaction upon the "seller," which title shall default to the provider of the greater value of products, or if they be equal, then of services. The tax rate is adjusted and collected monthly to exactly balance the cost of each spending bill and to implement debt elimination.

5) The people demand a balanced budget where tax revenue is directly tied to spending bills. If the debt exceeds 30% of the revenue, it must be paid off within ten years, otherwise it must be paid off in three years. Government may not enter into debt except, as required, in preparation of military defense against invading forces. The people require fiscal responsibility of their government by a balanced budget with active debt avoidance and elimination.

6) The people require fair governance and blind justice by active government defense of individual privacy, except as needed to prosecute the violation of law in court, or as needed to establish identity. To that end, no law, order, or policy by government shall consider nor cause to be recorded: age, gender, race, medical history or genealogy, physical appearance, religion, political affiliation, wealth or property, income or employment, business or residence history or itinerary, or any other attribute which may be used to single out any person or group smaller than the majority of the population over which the governing document applies.

7) The people encourage competition by separating infrastructure from services. All services will have equal access to infrastructure at the same prices. No company may offer a contract exclusively nor discriminate with a different fee schedule. We require the terms of all business contracts to be published openly and to allow all businesses equal access to the same terms. Any company may use any existing infrastructure at the same price as any other company, non-exclusively. Infrastructure must be owned by companies independent and wholly separate from any company which uses it. Infrastructure includes phone lines, cell phone towers, data lines, power lines, road, satellites, etc. which connect more than one business or residence.

8 ) The people declare the importance of medical care in establishing the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility. We declare it unlawful for any company to collect information regarding their own employees' medical insurance. Each company must pay their medical benefits directly to their employees in the form of medical benefits vouchers payable to the employee's choice of eligible medical insurance company located anywhere in the country. The insurance company may not record or collect employment related information in any way or for any purpose, including the name of the employer.

9a) The people require the government to issue school vouchers to every child, to receive minor children (1-18 years old) from 7am to 4pm Monday through Friday with counselors who take full responsibility and sole for the children from the time that the children step on the bus/campus to the time they step off it. Any company many bring teachers onto campus, or have the children driven to their campus. A child may choose any teacher for any subject so long as the core subjects are covered, regardless of company affiliation. The government retains the right and responsibility to send counselors with the children and to take children back to the government campus for discipline or other reasons. The government may not employee teachers, nor rate them, nor take any part in the teacher appraisal process. Government must however provide public forums for teachers to be rated and appraised by students, by parents, and by student tests, respectively. Students must be tested in the core subjects every day and have access at any time to sample tests for that day.

9b) In defense of educational freedom, the teacher always retains the right to remove any student from the class for any reason and for any duration. Government must ensure that if students are not in class, in testing, or in studying/tutoring, then they are given access to remedial tutoring based on testing results, or else to a wide variety of fun educational, or physical activities. Discipline or police action supersedes all these student rights.

9c) Minor children must be transported to campus in vehicles if they have to cross a road with greater than two lanes to get to school. If a student spends their entire day on a non-government campus, they may be transported from home directly to and from that campus.

9d) Students will be tested on real-world application and problem-solving for each subject that they have already passed in primary and secondary schools. Government testers shall have no other role than to create, administer, grade, and publish reports on all tests in qualified subjects. Testers shall create (if needed) and administer multiple versions of their tests throughout each day to prevent cheating. Tests must not require more than 30 minutes or less than 5 minutes to complete. Tests must be approved and published for nationwide use with at least one corresponding sample test no sooner than 24 hours before the test is to be administered. Test evaluation for approval must be complete no longer than 24 hours after it has been submitted, complete with all reasons for rejection, if that is the case. Tests will be evaluated by local boards of testers. The same sample tests must be used for all versions of the same test. No test may be used more than once per year, and never in the same month that it was used the previous year so that the version cannot be predicted or known prior to entry in any testing environment. They shall administer tests in a room without cellular signal reception. Students, teachers, and testers may separately rate each test on a public government forum.

10) The people embrace identity as the glue of civilization, and the weapon against criminals and their prized weapon of darkness and anonymity. The government shall establish a system for identifying every person on her territories using biometrics and other technologies in conjunction with RFID or other wireless broadcast technologies, which are highly resistant to identity theft. It shall be unlawful for any citizen to prevent this network from establishing the true identity of any other citizen. The government shall ensure that every citizen may use this technology to identify any citizen at any time and in a timely and detailed manner. It shall be unlawful for any government or other organization, or their agents, to use this technology to engage in refuse to engage in commerce or to engage in provocation on the basis of race, gender, age, wealth, profession or income, religion, or political affiliation.

• I have amendments in-progress regarding the rights of minors and CPS, and another regarding compulsory government-run education. The constitution poorly deals with minors and their education, information technology and intellectual property, and identity establishment.

---

Andy's commentary For reference: 1) in order to form a more perfect union 2) establish justice 3) insure domestic tranquility 4) provide for the common defense 5) promote the general welfare 6) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

My 2nd amendment proposal applies only to representatives and not to senators, thus checks and balances are enhanced. Representatives must seek out the public will or serve without legislative power. The people establish themselves as the sole object of representation in the house, and dismiss special interests and big business from usurping their power in that body. No one dictates the issues that the reps choose to promote to the people or bring to their attention. If the people feel strongly enough to force their reps' hands with a majority support of all registered voters of each respective district over a majority of the districts, then there is still the senate to stop them, unless there is a house super-majority.

The first proposed amendment relieves the pressure on the voter to oppose issues about which their exists neither interest nor opinion. This places the burden of informing and rallying the people (all of them) on the advocates of each bill. Bills pass when the nation is brought together behind them for a more perfect union (#1) and thus we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (#6).

The second proposed amendment binds representatives to represent the people (and not Senators) and not rich special interest, big business, etc. This establishes justice (#2) by returning the power of the people to the people so that the powerful cannot harness the people's power for their own good as they have done with the recent "bailouts" to disastrous proportions. Representatives must bring the people into politics and unify them to exercise their powers, and thus this amendment acts in order to form a more perfect union (#1).

The third proposed amendment moderates filibusters and legislative ramming with healthy debate that insures domestic tranquility (#3).

The fourth proposed amendment a flat tax establishes justice (#2) by leveling the playing field and removing discrimination. It takes the accountability off the people in order to insure domestic tranquility (#3).

The fifth proposed amendment brings fiscal responsibility to establish domestic security (#3) from alarming levels of debt while enabling debt in times of emergency in order to provide for the common defense (#4). The younger are protected from bearing heavy debt brought on by the immediate-gratification and foolish greed of the older (#6), thus establishing some fairness and justice (#2).

The sixth proposed amendment establishes justice (#2) by blind legislation through privacy protection.

Latter amendments to follow are defense of competition (#3 & #5 below) on infrastructure, property, and services, and defense of freedom in education (#2 & #5 below) for teacher, student, and parent alike.

Politics Institutional Issues arise from considerations of political idealogies

I should first note that no government executes the will of the people, but only the rule of the mob ("the most energetic faction" or coalition of factions). The reason for this is that no effort is made to ensure that the election results correspond directly and definitively to the majority of the people (entire eligible voter population), nor is there any question to the assumption that >50% constitutes the proper majority for a democracy. So before I even speak of the virtues of the various political categories of factions, at least two "cans of worms" have already been opened,. While many are already prepared to protest the direction of this discussion, but alas these and a few other major institutional issues are NOT without perfect solution. Encompassing a very large and uncomfortable questioning of fundamental beliefs and assumptions, each must be addressed separately with the trust that they will all eventually converge to a consistent, clear solution which likely differs greatly from all previous experiments in the rule of the people. Before speaking about the merits of each factional class/group, we must resolve the institutional problems which set the conditions under which they must rule. People can only be successful when they understand and abide by the natures of their environments. So how do the people assure the superiority of their voice to both the faction and the elite officers of government? Obviously, we must begin with an open system of comparing the voice of the votes with the voice of the voters (all eligible to vote), positive identification and immediate, almost-transparent reporting of the votes of the people. Again red-flags are flying, doubtless because such ideas are unconsidered, and examples of various kinds of abuses are most readily remembered. I assure you that these have all been considered and resolved to a negligible threat level while preserving the freedoms which we Americans hold so dear. While this discussion naturally opens a diverse and intimidating host of issues, problems, and fears, the solutions unlock far greater wealth, happiness, security, and freedom. For an understanding of the nature of democracy, consider the most basic one which consists of three people: Two black people and one white person; to hell with those who would immediately think racism in a thought experiment which allows any two races to be substituted. Let's say that the two black people develop a stronger friendship with each other than with the white person. Assuming everyone votes, politics clearly breaks this system. A 2/3 majority here is both insufficient and unjust, because on any neutral issue for one black person, there will be a tendency to side with the other black person, in exchange for an IOU when the situation may be reversed. From this situation, we witness the birth of politics and the problems which plague all modern governments. In larger groups, 50.01% of the votes is hardly a majority, and still prone to abusive and unjust factional rule, or mob rule. Regardless of the "law of the land" or the positions of the leaders, rule is currently executed by the strongest "mob," with chants, protests, organized violence, theft, and even murder, regardless of their influence upon the "official" government. As diversity grows, factional power dissipates, and as the voter population grows, the significance of >50% shrinks to that of the two vote scenario, neither one by itself constituting anything near a majority. Honestly, being in 49.9% of the non-majority population does not feel like minority status to me. The law must require a majority of all eligible voters in a diverse voting population, and that majority must well exceed 50%. The two-thirds voting scenario introduces 75% and the passing academic mark for acceptable correct response is typically 70%, so that seems like a natural minimum. The living people must be heard above the echoes of the dead, and even their silence must drown out the shouting of the mob. They must be allowed to identifiably and equally (with equal influence) speak as they wish in elections, and join together into common purposes while preserving privacy and the secret ballot. The principles which advance this purpose carry great and diverse implications as they splash into all other areas of politics and law. There is no justice or harmony without these principles. Next time, I will consider the idealogical positions with respect to the films, The Power of the Nightmare, and The Century of the Self, and other quotes and thoughts which come to mind at the time.